Summary
After Annie Nagaraj, the Navy considered short service commission officers for permanent commission against vacancies it computed and released those not selected. The Armed Forces Tribunal upheld this, relying heavily on vacancy calculations and Selection Board proceedings given to it alone in sealed cover. The Supreme Court set the judgment aside for breach of natural justice. Material relied on by a party, or likely in all reasonable probability to influence the decision, must be disclosed to the other side. Sealed-cover adjudication denies an effective challenge, entrenches opacity and favours the party, usually the State, that controls the information; non-disclosure is permitted only exceptionally and proportionately. While protecting Board deliberations, the Navy must disclose each officer's merit position. The matters were remitted with interim protection continued.
Issues
- Whether the Armed Forces Tribunal could uphold the denial of permanent commission by relying on vacancy calculations and Selection Board proceedings disclosed only to it in a sealed cover.
Provisions considered
- Section 31(1), Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007Appeals lay against the Tribunal's judgment, which this Court set aside and remitted because the Tribunal is entrusted with primary fact-finding. (¶¶ 1, 30, 31)
- Regulation 203, Naval Ceremonial, Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Regulations, 1963Permanent commission depended on vacancies in the stabilised cadre, suitability, the Chief of Naval Staff's recommendation and inter se merit on ACRs, whose application could not be tested without disclosure. (¶¶ 4, 23)
Held
- All material relied on by a party, and relevant material which would in reasonable probability influence the decision even if not relied on, must be disclosed; one-sided submission of material to the adjudicator seriously violates natural justice. (¶¶ 24, 25, 27)
- Sealed-cover disclosure denies the aggrieved party an effective challenge, perpetuates opacity and tilts the balance toward the party controlling information; non-disclosure is permissible only exceptionally and proportionately, as for a sexual harassment victim's identity. (¶ 28)
- The Tribunal's findings of correct vacancy computation, no mala fides and no gender bias rested on undisclosed material that the officers could not contest, causing substantial prejudice; while Board deliberations may stay confidential, the officers' merit positions on the parameters must be disclosed. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23, 29, 30)
Result
Appeals allowed; the Tribunal's judgment dated 03.01.2022 set aside and the original applications restored for fresh adjudication, preferably by February 2023; officers protected by interim orders, and the officer whose tenure ends in December 2022, to continue in service until eight weeks after the Tribunal's decision.